Maintenance of golf courses involves a significant amount of time and expense. This time and cost for maintenance is impacted when golf carts are driven onto areas of the golf course (e.g. the greens) where the traveling golf carts can cause damage. In addition to the cost and time associated with fixing the damaged grounds, the damage areas can inconvenience golfers, affect play, and in general make a golfer's use of the course less enjoyable.
There are two methods available for controlling the movement of golf carts while they are being operated on golf courses. One method involves providing some sort of warning to identify restricted areas of the golf course so the golf cart operator can avoid them. In the second method a predetermined course of action is dictated to the cart operator in the event the operator does not heed the warnings identifying restricted areas.
Under the first method golf courses have provided signs to identify restricted areas and to identify the paths on which the golf carts are supposed to travel. Alternatively, visual and auditory alarms have been provided on the golf carts to identify restricted areas and to indicate when the carts have intruded into the restricted area. Unfortunately, these schemes are not as effective as one would like.
The alternate scheme, disclosed in U.S. Pat. No. 4,656,476, uses an antenna/transmitter combination to identify the boundaries of the restricted areas; uses a receiver and signal processor to receive the transmitted signals and generate an output signal when the signal strength has exceeded a threshold; and provides visual/auditory alarms, responsive to the output signals, for the operators to determine where to drive the golf carts. Three visual alarms are used to indicate that the golf cart is approaching the outer boundary of a restricted area, to indicate that the cart is approaching a restricted area, and to indicate that the cart has entered a restricted area. An auditory alarm can be used to supplement the visual warnings.
This scheme, however, is only effective to protect restricted areas if the operator is willing to follow the visual and auditory queues. There is no provision made to hold operators accountable for their actions or lack thereof. Nor is there any provision made so golf course rangers patrolling the course can identify golf carts which are improperly parked or traveling on the golf course.
The second method of controlling assumes that some operators will not respond, for one reason or another, to the visual and/or auditory alarms. As such, this method dictates a predetermined course of action to be taken by a cart operator in the event the operator does not exit or avoid restricted areas per the warnings. The apparatus includes provisions to ensure that the operator follows the predetermined course of action.
The golf cart control system, disclosed in U.S. Pat. No. 5,053,768, provides both alarms to induce operator action and means for enforcing a predetermined course of action if the golf cart is not removed from a restricted area within a predetermined period of time. This system identifies the boundary of the restricted area by means of an single antenna and transmitter. When a signal above a predetermined threshold is received, the cart control system receiver package located on the golf cart, provides a visual warning (e.g., a single colored light) that the cart is entering a restricted area. This signal also starts a timer used to generate a second visual alarm if the golf cart has not exited the restricted area within a preset time.
If the operator fails to exit the restricted area within the preset time, the system has provisions for disabling the golf cart so it cannot be driven further in the forward direction in the protected area. Rather the golf cart is disabled so that it can only be driven in reverse or "backed out" of a restricted area. Disablement is accomplished by interconnecting the golf cart's drive with the cart control system. Disabling of the cart along with prespecifying the cart's direction of travel has certain short comings.
Since golf courses are not known for being flat, especially around the greens, it is quite possible for the cart to be going down an inclined section when the power is cut off. If the operator is not paying attention or is unaware that they have entered a restricted area (e.g., the alarm light has burned out), it is possible for the operator to become unnecessarily surprised or even injured (e.g., bump head) when the power is cut off and the vehicle comes to a sudden stop. Also when the cart is being backed out, the cart's operation could damage the turf or grass on the inclined section if it is wet.
This system contains no features for identifying non-conforming operators to golf course representatives (e.g., course rangers) during or after a game (i.e., no means for holding operators accountable for their actions). Rather, as indicated above, after receipt of the initial signal the cart is disabled upon the expiration of a predetermined amount of time. Thus, there is no way of determining if a cart operator ever violated the course rules concerning restricted areas during the time of play.
If an operator is not familiar with the disabling function or does not believe a restricted area had been entered, the operator may incorrectly conclude that the cart has had a power or transmission failure. The delay in resolving the reason for the golf cart's failure can impact or delay the play of other golfers, as well as annoy the operator. The operator could also become annoyed because the cart has become disabled and the operator is being forced to back-up the golf cart. Since golf like many games is part mental attitude, a golfer is quite likely to blame a bad hole or bad game on the problems with the cart. While protecting restricted areas is important, annoying golfers or interfering with the game of other golfers is not necessarily in the best interests of the golf course.
As a practical matter, the predetermined time period is on the order of about 2 seconds to assure that a golf cart does not make a large incursion into a restricted area (i.e., a golf cart traveling at 10 mph will traverse about 30 feet or 10 yards in 2 seconds). Because of the restrictive turn radius of golf carts, it is quite likely that the predetermined time period will expire before the cart can be turned around to exit the area. Thus, operators who turn their cart around and are exiting in compliance with the first warning will be forced to back-up out of the restricted area. This would happen even if driving forward would be the fastest and best way to exit. The likelihood of the time expiring before exiting becomes greater for operators who are moving at speeds slower than that assumed for determining the preset time period.
Disabling the cart also involves interfacing and interconnecting the cart control system with the controls and drive system for the golf cart. This increases the complexity of the cart control system and creates another failure mode for the cart. Since it is a common practice for golf courses to rent their golf carts, it is quite possible that such modifications to disable a cart would not be allowed by the cart owner; could only be done by the cart owner at the golf course's expense; or could involve additional charges from the owner to return the cart back to its as rented condition (e.g., repair cart). These added costs will likely exceed the typical rental charges, especially for daily rentals. Alternatively the golf course would have to purchase carts in lieu of renting them.
Rental carts are a concern because they are usually obtained when a golf course is anticipating a large number of guests for special events such as tournaments. Damage to restricted areas is more likely to occur at these times because the guests are not familiar with course rules and the areas of the course to be avoided. As such, rental cart usage and the potential for damage must be addressed.
Other systems involving golf cart control or locating a golf cart with respect to some feature of the golf course are disclosed in U.S. Pat. Nos. 4,480,310 and 4,926,161.
Another course management concern that can effect play and cause golfer inconvenience is when golfers take a longer amount of time to play a game of golf than expected. This is often referred to as slow play. Typically tee off or start times for golfers are staggered so the golfers that tee off earlier have sufficient time to advance their play so that they should not interfere with the game of the later starting golfers. However, golfers who are playing slow delay the game of the later starting golfers or the slow playing golfers have to stop their play long enough so the later started golfers can play through. Alternatively, course management could increase the delay between the start times, however, this affects the number of golfers who can use the course and the fees for golfing. Present techniques for dealing with slow play, involves manual tracking of the playtime and/or providing a golfer with a mechanism that the golfer operates to keep track of the time. Both techniques require the active and continuous involvement of course representatives as well as the golfers.
There is a need, therefore, for a technique or mechanism that automatically keeps track of a golfer's time of play without requiring the golfer's participation in the data collection process. Such a technique or mechanism should also provide this information to the golfer and/or course representative. More particularly, the timing process should be automatically initiated and reflect how golf is played at a given course.
Therefore, it is an object of the present invention to provide a golf cart control and monitoring apparatus that monitors golf cart usage so cart operators who intrude into restricted/protected areas of a golf course can be identified and so these operators can be held accountable for their actions after and/or during a game.
It is a further object of the present invention to provide an apparatus that does not involve controlling the operation of a golf cart to prevent intrusion or further intrusion into a restricted area (e.g., disabling the cart).
Another object of the present invention is to provide an apparatus that makes decisions based on cart location with respect to the restricted area.
It is yet a further object of the present invention to provide an apparatus that provides both visual and auditory alarms/signals to a golf cart operator to identify restricted areas so the operator will not intrude into these areas.
It is yet another object of the present invention to provide an apparatus that permits course personnel to readily identify golf carts that are located in restricted areas.
It is still yet another object of the present invention to provide an system which uses RF signal triangulation techniques for determining the location of the golf cart with respect to protected areas.
It is still yet a further object of the present invention to provide a system and apparatus that automatically determines and keeps track of the play time for each game and to make this information available to the cart operator/golfer as well as course representatives.